![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
May 1st, 2008
"Power can mean one of two things, domination or potency. Far from being identical, these two qualities are mutually exclusive. Impotence, using the term not only with regard to the sexual sphere but to all spheres of human potentialities, results in the sadistic striving for domination; to the extent to which an individual is potent, that is,able to realize his potentialities on the basis of freedom and integrity of his self, he does not need to dominate and is lacking the lust for power. Power, in the sense of domination, is the perversion of potency, just as sexual sadism is the perversion of sexual love." - Erich Fromm
MRDA titled the entry will-to-potency, a reference to the belief that the concept of the will-to-power in Nietzsche's philosophy is often incorrectly understood as being a will to domination, when it's in fact a will to potency. I suspect this came about due to difficulties in translation; in German the distinction between potency-power and domination-power is probably more clear.
MRDA titled the entry will-to-potency, a reference to the belief that the concept of the will-to-power in Nietzsche's philosophy is often incorrectly understood as being a will to domination, when it's in fact a will to potency. I suspect this came about due to difficulties in translation; in German the distinction between potency-power and domination-power is probably more clear.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,22
I'm surprised that John C Dvorak is still writing articles for PC Magazine all these years later.
I think this article is correct -- online communities are fickle and apt to fall apart at the drop of a hat, people who were friends suddenly can become enemies and not talk to each other, and so on -- but is that really any different from real life? Are friendships in the flesh any more stable? They can fall apart just as easily, it seems.
Perhaps it's more difficult because of proximity factors: if you work with someone, live with someone, go to school with someone, or see someone every day, it's harder for them to just disappear or suddenly decide to never talk to you again. But it still happens.
Sure, maybe you actually do get to know a few people, and it's certainly true that people do meet through online chats and even get married. I know at least four couples personally who met online and got married. But hooking up is not a community. I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a real community online. It's a "pretend" community that we like to feel we're a part of, but it's composed of users who could jump ship at any moment, and often do.
I'm surprised that John C Dvorak is still writing articles for PC Magazine all these years later.
I think this article is correct -- online communities are fickle and apt to fall apart at the drop of a hat, people who were friends suddenly can become enemies and not talk to each other, and so on -- but is that really any different from real life? Are friendships in the flesh any more stable? They can fall apart just as easily, it seems.
Perhaps it's more difficult because of proximity factors: if you work with someone, live with someone, go to school with someone, or see someone every day, it's harder for them to just disappear or suddenly decide to never talk to you again. But it still happens.